Roch Castle, Pembrokeshire

A Study in Significance

Peter Holden and James Meek

Roch Castle photographed from the north-east just before completion of the project

If the intervention is to find its place,
it must make us see what already exists
in a new light (Peter Zumthor, Thinking
Architecture, 2006)

Cadw, the Welsh government’s
historic environment service,
defines conservation as ‘the careful
management of change’ in its Conservation
Principles (2011). The same publication also
states that ‘to be sustainable, investment in
the conservation of the historic environment
should bring social and economic benefits’.
With dwindling state aid, a sustainable
future for historic buildings in Wales must be
underpinned by economically viable use.

Conservation Principles goes on to
describe the significance of a historic asset
as embracing ‘all of the cultural heritage
values that people associate with it, or which
prompt them to respond to it’. Assessing the
significance of a place can involve subjective
decisions based on emotional responses.
To the client it may mean one thing, to the
archaeologist or preservation group another. It
often falls to the architect to assess conflicting
evidence in order to evaluate significance.

Cadw’s principles also state that new
work or alteration to a significant place
will normally only be acceptable if ‘there
is sufficient information comprehensively
to understand the impact of the proposal
on the significance of the asset’ and
‘the quality of design and execution
add value to the existing asset’.

The conversion of a Grade I listed
building to a new use can only be successfully
achieved through a mutually respectful
partnership between architect, archaeologist
and conservation officer. This is especially
true when the building in question is an
early medieval castle like the one at Roch in
west Pembrokeshire. The project benefited
throughout from the support and positive
input of the conservation department at the
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

As with all ancient buildings, the
fabric records a story of change that
reflects historical, political and social
developments. The challenge at Roch Castle was to understand the extent of the surviving
medieval work and to evaluate the significance
of the more recent alterations.

ROCH CASTLE – THE STORY SO FAR

Roch Castle was one of a number of defended
sites along the ‘Landsker line’, the boundary
between the English, Flemish and Norman
settlers of southwest Pembrokeshire and the
ousted native Welsh to the north and east.
Originally a simple stone tower perched on an
outcrop of igneous rock, its unusual D-shaped
plan-form (‘chapter 1’ in the diagram, below left) was probably an engineering
solution to the shape of the rock rather than a
stylistic convention. It was constructed by the
descendants of a powerful family of Flemish
settlers in the 13th century, and the castle
remained in the hands of the descendants
of Godbert the Fleming (the de Rupe and de
la Roche families) until the 15th century.

Roch Castle: phases of use from the 13th century to the
present day

Photograph of Roch Castle from the south-east taken before
1900 (Haverfordwest Records Office)

The square tower and stair extension
on the south-east side of the castle were
added when the defensive role of the castle
diminished and it became a high status
residence (‘chapter 2’). By the latter part
of the 15th century the castle was in a
ruinous and deserted state. Between 1643
and 1645, during the English Civil War,
it changed hands between the Royalist
and Parliamentarian forces four times
and suffered cannon damage. It was not
extensively repaired and by the 19th century
(‘chapter 3’) it was a ruin.

The castle was purchased by Sir John
Wynford Philipps (later Viscount St Davids)
in 1899. He instigated extensive restoration
works in the first two decades of the 20th
century, including the addition of a three-storey
extension on the northern side of the
tower, and the installation of new floors,
stairs and internal divisions (‘chapter 4’).

In 1954 the castle was purchased by John
Whitfield and it was occupied by his father
Lord Kenswood and his family until 1965.
The castle was then sold to Hollis Baker,
an American furniture manufacturer. The
latter two owners, Kenswood and Baker,
were responsible for the ‘baronialisation’ of
the interiors. Photographs taken in the mid
1950s show a series of additions attributed to
Kenswood. These include, significantly, black
painted gothic doors with false strap hinges
(by Baldwin’s of America) and leaded light
internal screens.

The last phase of alterations was
carried out by David Berry who, between
1972 and 1985, closed off two stairways and
reorganised partitions to facilitate separate
holiday lettings of the annexe and tower.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

At the start of the project an initial desk-based
assessment and building appraisal was
undertaken by Dyfed Archaeological Trust
field services to support the planning and
listed building consent applications. The aims
of this work were to gain further information
on the present state of preservation of the
castle, provide an indication on the surviving
medieval fabric of the building and make an
assessment of its archaeological importance.
Some research was undertaken into the
castle’s date, ownership and historical
development, and the subsequent report also
provided further information on the known
archaeological and historical character of the
surrounding landscape.

Further works undertaken at the castle
have included a scheme of detailed historic
building recording, including survey and
photography. This has been supplemented
with information recorded during various
archaeological watching briefs and a
geophysical survey within the grounds.

The historic building recording work has
established that the majority of the exterior
castle walls is substantially of medieval
fabric, although many of the internal and
external wall facades were restored during
the early 20th century. The recording work
has confirmed that the original D-shaped
tower had at least two upper floors and a
basement area, which was partially occupied
by the rocky outcrop. It is likely that this
was first built in the early years of the 13th
century by Adam de Rupe. Access to the
original tower would have been at the first
floor level on the north side. Originally,
internal stairs were present within the
thickness of the walls on the apsidal end
of the building, although these were later
modified when the square tower addition and
stair extension were built on the south-east
side of the castle. These extensions contained
small bedchambers or solars (private
sitting rooms) and guardrobes (latrines).

The medieval floor arrangements differed
significantly from those inserted during the
early 20th century works with the first floor
hall having a much higher ceiling. By the 14th
century, large windows had been inserted
of which the stone corbelled arches survive,
although the actual windows have been
heavily modified and replaced. Similar arches
over windows and doorways survive on the
ground floor of the tower, although these are
probably late medieval additions, modified
in the early 20th century. The square tower is
likely to have been added in the 14th century.
The second storey of this tower retains an
original rib-vaulted ceiling.

During the early 20th century works, new
floors and room divisions were added. The
circulation routes and stairs that exist in the
building are a mix of medieval and early 20th
century additions.

THE OWNER’S BRIEF

View of the castle from the south-east

Roch Castle was purchased in 2009 by the
Griffiths-Roch Foundation with the intention
of repairing the building and converting it
into one of a chain of retreats, all in historic
buildings, operated by the Retreats Group Ltd.

Raised in St Davids, the owner (a
commercial architect based in Hong Kong)
knew the building well and was keen to
preserve its history, architecture and
importance to the landscape of the St Davids
Peninsula. His plan was to introduce all
the facilities associated with five star
accommodation in the heart of the medieval
building using careful design to protect and
enhance its significance.

From the outset it was clear that there
were potential conflicts and challenges inherent in this approach, not least:

introducing new functions and spaces
without damaging the integrity of the old

controlling damp ingress to an acceptable
level without changing the aesthetic of
the castle

managing safe access and egress without
introducing fire escapes

accommodating new hidden services
runs within and without

minimising future maintenance,
particularly at high level

defining the junctions between new
and old.

CONSERVATION AND
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

The liberal use of concrete renders from the
early 20th century restoration works has
not aided the survival of the castle, which is
recorded as having long-standing problems
with water ingress and damp. These were
serious enough to cause some occupiers to
leave. The application of an asphalt coating to
the flat roofs and parapet walks helped but,
as with the use of cement-based pointing, it
proved to be a short-term fix at best.

Encased in cement by Viscount St
Davids and in glass fibre by later owners,
permission was given at an early stage to
allow the removal of linings, cement renders
and pointing. This would allow a better
understanding of the story of the development
of the castle and its condition, prior to an
application for listed building consent.

As work progressed, the extent of
the damage caused to steel beams and
unprotected reinforced concrete (RC) work
became apparent. Roofs were formed from
concrete cast in situ onto vaulted corrugated
steel sheets between RSJs. The breakdown of
the asphalt covering had severely damaged
the corrugated steel and the top flange
of the RSJs. The RC floor slabs had been
built directly into the damp walls and
had been cast with too little ‘cover’. (Over
the years, dissolved carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere progressively reduces the
alkalinity of the concrete which protects the
steel reinforcement. The thickness of the
concrete over the steel is therefore critical
to its durability.) Concrete analysis showed
that in all of the concrete floors, the depth
of carbonation exceeded the concrete cover
to the reinforcement, suggesting that all of
the reinforcement was by this time liable to
ongoing corrosion.

The engineer’s report concluded that the
extent of the damage to the reinforcement
and the structural steel, and the degree to
which it had been built into the masonry,
meant that in situ repairs would be
impractical.

Typical corrosion of floor slab reinforcement

On the other hand, the replacement of
the floors and roofs would mean the loss
of all the 1950s alterations and much of the
Viscount St Davids restoration of 1910. There
was a general consensus that the 1950s work
was of little architectural or historical value.

The archaeologist had already concluded
that the 1910 alterations had not adhered to
any of the original floor levels or staircase
locations and most of Viscount St Davids’
architectural details had been lost during
the later work. The significance of his
involvement, certainly as far as the Society
for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
was concerned, revolved around what was
perceived as an early use of in situ concrete
work in west Wales.

Justification for removal rather than
repair of the RC structure by the architect
was based on:

the identification of much better
examples of early RC work in west
Wales such as those at Caldey Island
Monastery (1912) and the Towy
Works, Carmarthen (1907-9)

the long-term maintenance implications
of not replacing the floors

the likely effects of any collapse and
the resulting damage to the medieval
fabric should corrosion continue.

After a prolonged debate, consent was
eventually granted. It was conditional on
the specific testing of each slab and the
development of a method statement for
the removal of the floors (from the bottom
up) aimed at preserving the integrity of the
castle walls.

INTERVENTION

New lime render on the staircase walls

Repairs and alterations were designed to
ensure that the surviving medieval fabric
was protected and consolidated, and new
work was designed with reversibility in
mind. Structural components such as roofs,
for example, were attached to the structure,
not built into it, so that if necessary the
new components could be removed with
minimum disruption to earlier fabric.

The external repair of the medieval fabric
using matching Pennant sandstones and
hydraulic lime mortars has been extensive and
time consuming. Internally, the masonry walls
have been plastered with hemp lime plaster.

Last repointed in sand and cement in the
early 20th century, all the pointing has now
been renewed in hydraulic lime (NHL 3.5) and
sand mortar. The main body of the medieval
tower has been hacked out to an average depth
of 60mm and pointed in three ‘passes’. The
final coat was trowled and brush finished
over much of the rubble face work in what is
locally known as a ‘parged’ finish. In addition
the 15th-century square tower on the exposed
south face has received two shelter coats of the
same mix, brush applied. The roughly coursed
masonry of the 20th-century annexe has been
flush pointed in two passes.

To avoid confusing the history
of the building, the internal fit-out is
uncompromisingly modern, incorporating
polished limestone floors, glass screens
with aluminium frames and bespoke
joinery. In the one location where the new
interior extends outside, in the form of a
structure which tops the annexe roof (see
title illustration), the modern vocabulary
is continued, although it interacts with the
original fabric by reflecting the D-shaped
form of the original tower.

This dialogue between new and old is
continued internally through the use of hemp
lime plasters for many of the new suspended
ceilings and partitions.

Completed in the autumn of 2011, it is
hoped that the quality of the repairs and
alterations will sustain the next chapter
in the life of this important building, both
physically and economically.

The Building Conservation Directory, 2012

Author

PETER HOLDEN RIBA AABC is managing
director of Acanthus Holden Architects and was director in charge of the
project with direct responsibility for the
conservation of the medieval castle.

JAMES MEEK MIfA is head of field services
at Dyfed Archaeological Trust and was
responsible for the archaeological research
for
the project.